Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Many GOP Foreign-Policy Leaders Are Suspicious of Ted Cruz
National Review ^ | 12/14/2015 | by TIM ALBERTA & ELIANA JOHNSON

Posted on 12/14/2015 6:58:05 AM PST by SeekAndFind

An influential chorus within the Republican establishment is raising questions about whether Ted Cruz can be trusted on foreign policy. Among this crowd, Cruz's use of the term "neocon" was seen as the latest evidence of his willingness to elevate politics over principle on matters of national security.

By the end of George W. Bush's second term in office, the term "neoconservative," once widely used to describe the hawkish foreign-policy views held by several of the president's most senior advisers, had become radioactive. As critics began using it to describe a cadre of like-minded Jews who had allegedly hijacked American foreign policy and driven the U.S. to war in Iraq, it took on a conspiratorial tinge.

So when Ted Cruz, on the campaign trail in Iowa and again in an interview with Bloomberg News, recently pointed the finger at "neocons" in an attempt to defend his own understanding of American interests abroad, the response among some conservative foreign-policy experts -- many of whom the term has been used to disparage -- was of shock, anger, and dismay.

"He knows that the term in the usual far-left and far-right parlance means warmonger, if not warmongering Jewish advisers, so it is not something he should've done," says Elliott Abrams, a former Bush administration National Security Council official and a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

"It's an epithet. It's always used pejoratively. And the main thing I resent about it is, it's a label, it's a way of avoiding arguments," says Eliot Cohen, a Bush administration State Department official and a professor at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies.

Another former Bush administration Defense Department official says simply, "It was a dog whistle."

The kerfuffle reflects deeper concerns among a core group of Republican intellectuals who favor a more active American foreign policy. They have occupied senior positions in and outside of government since the Reagan era; in essence, they constitute the heart of the conservative foreign-policy establishment. The subject of those concerns: Cruz's stances on issues from the National Security Agency's collection of metadata to the U.S.'s intervention in the Syrian civil war, as well as his approach to his duties on the Armed Services Committee, where he has been conspicuously absent from several public hearings.

Cruz is a master of triangulation and, since his arrival in the Senate, has said repeatedly that his views fall somewhere between those of John McCain on one end of the foreign-policy spectrum and Rand Paul on the other. At least rhetorically, Marco Rubio has replaced McCain now that Rubio and Cruz are competing for the Republican nomination. The perception of Republicans, Cruz said in Iowa late last month, is that either they "want to retreat from the world and be isolationist and leave everyone alone, or we've got to be these crazy neo-con invade-every-country-on-earth and send our kids to die in the Middle East." Days later, he told Bloomberg, "The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. If the Obama administration and the Washington neo-cons succeed in toppling [Bashar al-] Assad, Syria will be handed over to radical Islamic terrorists. ISIS will rule Syria."

Asked to respond to criticisms specifically of his using the term neocon, Cruz's communications adviser, Catherine Frazier, says in an e-mail, "Ted Cruz will never hesitate to tell the truth. Whether others like it or not."

All of this comes as Cruz is gaining momentum in the presidential race and trying to shore up his national-security credentials. He has been increasingly at odds with Rubio, who has become one of the GOP's leading advocates for a muscular foreign policy and who is now trying to undermine Cruz's credibility on the issue. The Rubio campaign continues to send a stream of e-mails pounding Cruz for his opposition to the NSA's metadata program and to intervening in the Syrian civil war.

Cruz's deliberate and repeated use of "neocon" gave fresh ammunition to many Republican hawks, as well as to his GOP rivals, who have long doubted his sincerity on matters of international affairs. "You don't accuse someone of being a neocon if you see yourself as a Reagan conservative on national security," former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum said in an interview. "And he's not. The Republican party thanks to Ron and Rand Paul have brought in different elements into the party, and I think Ted's comfortable in those elements."

Or at least he used to be. Now that the rise of ISIS has made Americans, and Republican voters in particular, more hawkish, Cruz has shifted his stances and rhetoric accordingly. At least, that's the view of some of his conservative critics.

"Cruz's problem is that he tends to look like he wants to tap into whatever's popular at the moment," says Gary Schmitt, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a former staff director for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. "Now he's kind of trapped because he thought the winds were blowing one way, and he's got to live with the statements he's made a couple of years ago."

Indeed, public sentiment has swung sharply on the matter of American engagement abroad. In December 2013, two years after President Obama celebrated the removal of the last American ground troops from Iraq, and as Rand Paul emerged as a Republican superstar – Time would later feature him on its cover as "The Most Interesting Man in Politics" -- the Pew Research Center conducted its quadrennial survey on "America's Place in the World." Fifty-two percent of respondents said the U.S. "should mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own," while 38 percent disagreed. It was, Pew said, "the most lopsided balance in favor of the U.S. ‘minding its own business' in the nearly 50-year history of the measure."

‘Cruz's problem is that he tends to look like he wants to tap into whatever's popular at the moment.' – Gary Schmitt

But in August 2014, as ISIS emerged as an Islamist wrecking ball and images of public beheadings dominated the nightly newscasts, Pew found that 54 percent approved of a U.S. military campaign against ISIS in Syria and Iraq, while just 31 percent disapproved. In July of this year, nearly a year later, Pew announced that the gap had grown further, with 63 percent in favor and 26 percent opposed. Just this month, a CNN/ORC poll found for the first time a majority of Americans, 53 percent, willing to send U.S. ground troops to the Middle East, with 45 percent opposed. (That's a 30-point swing since September 2014, when 38 percent were in favor and 60 percent opposed.)

Positioning himself between rivals Rand Paul and Marco Rubio on the national-security spectrum has given Cruz wiggle room to modulate his approach based on changing circumstances. It has also allowed him to claim kinship with various factions of the Republican electorate, including the "liberty" activists he's courted in Iowa and New Hampshire. But such support, it has become clear, won't include the party's more interventionist foreign-policy thinkers.

"I think he's basically picking foreign-policy positions not based on strategic necessity or internal coherence but basically designed for political advantage," says Max Boot, the military historian and senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, who is advising Marco Rubio. "I just don't think Senator Cruz's positions add up to a coherent foreign policy. What they add up to are convenient sound bites."

Cruz angered his critics again on Thursday when, in an address at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., he once more portrayed himself as a sane middle ground between the isolationists who say America has no role abroad and the warmongers who want to topple every dictator and pursue what Cruz has called "democratic utopias." The speech was particularly curious, Boot says, because it was framed as an ode to Ronald Reagan and his U.N. ambassador, Jeane Kirkpatrick.

"He trashes neocons and democracy promotion, but then he champions Ronald Reagan and Jeane Kirkpatrick," Boot says of Cruz. "And of course Jeane Kirkpatrick was one of the original neocons, and Ronald Reagan made democracy promotion a key part of his foreign policy."

But James Carafano, the Heritage vice president who introduced Cruz on Thursday, defended the speech -- and Cruz's triangulation between Paul and Rubio -- because, he says, "there has to be a reframing of the conversation" about Republicans' approach to national security.

"Four years ago it was between isolationism and interventionism, and that was the kind of caricature of our foreign policy that evolved in the post-Iraq world," says Carafano, who has advised all three freshman senators. (He agreed, however, that Cruz should not say "neocon" -- a phrase used often by Paul, to conservatives' chagrin -- because it "has been taken over by the Left, and it's everything we don't like about foreign policy. It's become a pejorative. You wind up insulting half the people you don't mean to insult.")

Some of Cruz's critics have also noted his lax approach to his duties on the Armed Services Committee, where the former Bush administration Defense Department official calls him "a no-show."

"He just hasn't attended hearings very often," he says. "He's done some pretty high-profile things, getting into the filibuster with Rand Paul on the drone strike and taking the position he did on the NSA stuff, but he hasn't really mastered any set of issues; he's gone after whatever the headline of the moment was." In April, Politico reported that Cruz had attended just 17 of the committee's 50 public hearings, referring to him as the senator who was "heard but not seen." (Attendance has also been a nagging issue for Rubio, who serves on the Intelligence and Foreign Relations Committees.)

One of the strategic premises of Cruz's campaign is his ability to consolidate the Right of the Republican party by not allowing anybody to get to his right. On national security, this is tricky: The party's right flank can be hawkish or dovish depending on the moment. That's in part what Cruz is grappling with now.

Former senator Jim Talent, a foreign-policy adviser to Mitt Romney in 2012 and to Scott Walker this year, says Cruz "doesn't have much of a history with these issues" and therefore thinks Republicans should cut him slack on perceived vacillating. "It's natural for someone to sound more hawkish and more security-conscious" at a time like this, Talent says. "I think it's a natural evolution in response to the circumstances."

Others aren't so sure. Schmitt, who has advised Rubio, Jeb Bush, and Ben Carson, says Cruz's constant search for a middle ground "instead of having a solid view of his own" is concerning. "I think the fact that his positions are moving targets lends itself to people doubting whether they can trust him," Schmitt says. "And that's a problem."

-- Tim Alberta is chief political correspondent for National Review. Eliana Johnson is Washington editor for National Review.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: foreignpolicy; tedcruz

1 posted on 12/14/2015 6:58:05 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Summary: The architects of a failed policy are questioning Ted Cruz for questioning their policy.


2 posted on 12/14/2015 7:00:08 AM PST by FlipWilson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I have just about reach overload on all the lies coming out in the media. I hate election cycles which now start one month after the elections.


3 posted on 12/14/2015 7:01:29 AM PST by Resolute Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Given the direction these foreign policy “experts” have led the country, I don’t blame them for being suspicious and probably very concerned that the gravy train is about to derail.


4 posted on 12/14/2015 7:01:41 AM PST by cripplecreek (Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

He promises to keep us out of unnecessary war, but promises to kill ISIS and make sure Iran does not get the bomb.

So, this may seem contradictory to some, and maybe it is. It is more or less what I think, though.

In any case, whether our next president is Hillary, or Trump, or Cruz, or Rand Paul’s dad, war is coming. We can know that war is coming because its already here, we just haven’t admitted it yet. We have to decide and be clear with ourselves that the next president is a war president; who do we trust to lead during time of war.


5 posted on 12/14/2015 7:03:33 AM PST by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

From the article: “He trashes neocons and democracy promotion, but then he champions Ronald Reagan and Kirkpatrick,” Boot says of Cruz. “And of course Kirkpatrick was one of the original neocons, and Ronald Reagan made democracy promotion a key part of his foreign policy.”

I just love it how they try to coopt Reagan for their purposes. He was not a Neocon, neither was Jeane Kirkpatrick. I cannot think of one major engagement Reagan got us into other than a foray into Lebanon as part of a peace keeping force. Honestly, the GOPe hated Reagan, did everything they could to stop him and now try to claim him as their own.


6 posted on 12/14/2015 7:03:52 AM PST by FlipWilson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Neocons are upset because Cruz doesn’t like neocons?


7 posted on 12/14/2015 7:07:02 AM PST by Hoodat (Article 4, Section 4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlipWilson
Ronald Reagan made democracy promotion a key part of his foreign policy.

Reagan did do that but he didn't do it at the point of a gun and expense of American blood. Reagan's primary tools were the free market and a strong but well rested military.
8 posted on 12/14/2015 7:08:58 AM PST by cripplecreek (Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat

...and the media’s fear of Cruz (or others of like mind) that they won’t say?

They NEED Republicans to be neocon interventionists to support the “evil Republican” narrative.

A strong defense does not mean an empire. The mere use of “homeland” irks me.


9 posted on 12/14/2015 7:11:35 AM PST by sayfer bullets (I didnt leave the [---] party, the [---] party left me. - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

He might stop the money flow on their pet give-aways.


10 posted on 12/14/2015 7:12:19 AM PST by Iron Munro (The wise have stores of choice food and oil but a foolish man devours all he has. Proverbs 21:20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlipWilson

Excellent summary


11 posted on 12/14/2015 7:12:56 AM PST by Behind Liberal Lines (Obama loves America the way OJ loved Nicole's)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

GOPe have anything to say about Obama? Hillary? The trillions in debt? The wide-open borders?

Or is it just another day of broadsides against conservatives?


12 posted on 12/14/2015 7:13:25 AM PST by TTFlyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Its the neocons who are hiding behind Reagan not the other way around.


13 posted on 12/14/2015 7:30:26 AM PST by mac_truck (aide toi et dieu t'aidera)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlipWilson

“Summary: The architects of a failed policy are questioning Ted Cruz for questioning their policy.”

Next up, Rubio “isolationist” name-calling. If you don’t favor bombing and nation-building and multi-generational troop deployments in nations of brown people 10,000 miles away, you are an “isolationist”.


14 posted on 12/14/2015 7:48:58 AM PST by ReaganGeneration2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
I am shocked! There ARE GOP "leaders"??? What a pathetic joke.
15 posted on 12/14/2015 7:50:30 AM PST by hal ogen (First Amendment or Reeducation Camp?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Teh GOP Establishment is making a massive mistake attacking Cruz as “Isolationist”. After all most 15 years of war, American voters are looking to elect someone who will make it their priority to be President of the USA 1st rather then focusing on playing “Emperor of Earth”.


16 posted on 12/14/2015 7:56:36 AM PST by MNJohnnie ( Tyranny, like Hell, is not easily conquered)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

If Cruz is upsetting the notcons that makes me like him a bit more.


17 posted on 12/14/2015 7:58:54 AM PST by Psalm 144 (The mill grinds exceedingly fine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marron

“He promises to keep us out of unnecessary war, but promises to kill ISIS and make sure Iran does not get the bomb.

So, this may seem contradictory to some, and maybe it is. It is more or less what I think, though.”


That is not contradictory to me, and I am glad to hear it. That is traditional and proper. Wars should be avoided, but if necessary, fought to win and win decisively. I think the notcons -want- perpetually simmering, never ending, never resolved wars. It is business and their sinecure. The costs in blood and taxes are shrugged off onto ‘little people’.

War has its place. Brief, hellish, and overwhelming. War is not a valid standing policy or investment.

This is what the notcons either cannot grasp or will not admit:

“A speedy victory is the main object in war. If this is long in coming, weapons are blunted and morale depressed. If troops are attacking cities, their strength will be exhausted. When the army engages in protracted campaigns, the resources of the state will fall short. When your weapons are dulled and ardor dampened, your strength exhausted and treasure spent, the chieftains of the neighboring states will take advantage of your crisis to act. In that case, no man, however wise, will be able to avert the disastrous consequences that ensue. Thus, while we have heard of stupid haste in war, we have not yet seen a clever operation that was prolonged. for there has never been a protracted war which benefited a country.” Sun Tzu


18 posted on 12/14/2015 8:07:29 AM PST by Psalm 144 (The mill grinds exceedingly fine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

If the Neo-cons control the next President, the USA is in war until we are weak and broke. What is needed is a President with the stature of Eisenhower who can talk to our enemies and convince them that we are not after their territory or oil or to rule the earth and make it the truth.


19 posted on 12/14/2015 8:46:55 AM PST by ex-snook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Notice that these folks are going after Sen. Cruz and not trump. They think they can get to be advisors to trump and leverage his proclivity for all things military. And his explicit willingness to acquire expertise in these matters by getting the “best generals” rather than taking the painstaking time to become expert himself.


20 posted on 12/14/2015 8:57:37 AM PST by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson